Trump’s anti-DEI order threatens state money for election security

Federal election officials are suggesting states must pledge to follow President Donald Trump’s directive curbing diversity, equity and inclusion programs as a condition for receiving $15 million in election security funding.

The new requirement for the grants has sent Democratic secretaries of state around the nation scrambling to assess the financial, legal and operational implications of accepting the money from the independent, bipartisan U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

The dispute is complicated by the vagueness of the revised federal grant agreement, which some state officials fear could be turned against them. The grant’s terms tell states they must promise to follow federal antidiscrimination laws but cite an executive order from Trump on DEI that Democrats oppose.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) — whose state is locked in a dispute with Trump over laws on transgender athletes — said she will forgo about $273,000 rather than sign an agreement that she fears would require her to follow the DEI order. Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) is reviewing the conditions with attorneys and is leaning toward rejecting the money rather than agreeing to the conditions, according to a person familiar with her thinking, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Other secretaries of state worry that taking the funds could put them in legal jeopardy if federal officials later determined that staff hires, programs or contracts ran afoul of the terms and conditions. Three secretaries said they are considering challenging the commission’s terms in court.

“I’m disturbed to see new terms and conditions that target diversity, equity and inclusion attached to election security funding,” Bellows said in an interview. “To be bound to a political agenda from the president for money appropriated by Congress is wrong. We’ve never seen politicized terms and conditions before.”

The angst over the funding comes as the Trump administration has eliminated much of the federal government’s front line defense against foreign interference in U.S. elections. In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi dissolved an FBI task force formed in response to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections that worked to uncover covert efforts by Russia, China, Iran and other foreign adversaries to manipulate U.S. voters. Separately, the Department of Homeland Security put at least seven federal employees who worked on teams combating foreign disinformation within the election security arm of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency on administrative leave.

Some state and local election officials have said the retreat from the federal government weakens their ability to keep voting systems secure at a time of heightened risks. For years, states have relied on grants through the Help America Vote Act to help protect them from foreign and domestic cyberattacks, improve the accuracy of voter rolls and audit elections to make sure procedures were followed and outcomes were accurate.

The grants provide states with a crucial block of funds to buy equipment and pay for staff, but they’re not as big as they used to be. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Congress provided $825 million in security grants and supplemental funding for elections. That dropped to $55 million by 2024 and is only $15 million this year.

Most states are set to receive about $273,000 this year, but California, Florida and Texas are eligible for more because of their large populations.

Last week, during a gathering of the Election Assistance Commission’s standards board, state election officials learned that to apply for the election security grants, they would have to sign an agreement by last Friday certifying that they do not “operate any programs promoting DEI” that violate federal antidiscrimination laws.

The paperwork also cited Trump’s Jan. 21 “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” executive order, which aimed to end what the administration deemed unlawful diversity, equity and inclusion programs within the federal government and private sector. A federal judge in Maryland has blocked parts of the order while he considers legal challenges to it.

After facing pushback from state officials, the commission told states Friday it was reviewing the terms and conditions of the grants.

“More information will be provided soon,” said an email from the commission that was obtained by The Washington Post.

A spokesperson for the commission did not respond to questions about the grants. The White House said it was reasonable to expect states to follow antidiscrimination laws if they receive federal election funds.

“Requiring secretaries of states … to personally sign that our entire offices meet some big DEI requirement to receive federal dollars is problematic,” said Griswold, who is in her second term and is running to be Colorado’s attorney general. “The language is vague, we don’t know what it means. And of course my office values a diverse workforce — it strengthens us, it strengthens Colorado.”

She said the Trump administration was trying to leverage the grant money to try to “usurp” state authority over elections. She and other secretaries of state argue that Trump doesn’t have the power to change the terms for the grants because Congress has authorized funding for all states with few strings.

Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read (D) said he had been ready for the Trump administration to impose conditions on federal funding.

“I'm skeptical, as every American should be,” Read said in a written statement. “I fail to see how culture war politics have anything to do with election security. Our office is reviewing how the loss of these grants will impact our ability to protect Oregon elections. We were already preparing for this because the Trump Administration is doing everything they can to make our elections vulnerable, especially in states that did not vote for him.”

Officials in the swing states of Michigan and Wisconsin said they were reviewing the grant documents and had not decided what they would do. Georgia plans to apply for a grant and does not think it would need to change how it operates to comply with the new terms, according to the secretary of state’s office.

In politically competitive Arizona, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) said he is weighing his options. For years, Fontes has asked the GOP-controlled legislature and Democratic governor to provide more election security funding as federal funds have become less certain.

“DEI isn’t defined anywhere [in the grant documents] — am I supposed to guess and open myself up to potential liability in the ultimate game of gotcha?” Fontes asked. “Am I supposed to just say no and deny Arizona the resources that we so desperately need from the federal government? It’s a tough decision.”

New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver (D) said her office needs all the resources it can get. But, she worries that taking the money under the current terms could compromise other areas of her office’s operations.

“Does this implicate just what we’re spending this money on?” she asked. “Or does it implicate everything we’re doing?”